[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SASL WG session at IETF67

To: ietf-sasl@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:50 -0400
In-reply-to: <ldv4pvm1411.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Tom Yu's message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:56:10 -0400")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-sasl/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-sasl.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-sasl-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <ldv4pvm1411.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxx

I've added emu and calsify to the first-priority conflicts list.  I've
noticed that msec, capwap, and btns list us in their conflict lists.
Do people think we should reciprocate those conflicts?

---Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
  - From: Alexey Melnikov

References:
- SASL WG session at IETF67
  - From: Tom Yu

Prev by Date: Re: gs2 and qop
Next by Date: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Previous by thread: SASL WG session at IETF67
Next by thread: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread